Bombay HC: The court can grant an interim bail under SC &ST Atrocities Act and simultaneously issue notice to Victim

There could be variety of situations and eventualities in which for the grant of relief it would become imperative for the court to pass an order without waiting for the service of notice to the informant/ victim. For example, prima facie case is not made out under the act and liberty of such individual is at stake. At various stages different orders are to be passed not affecting rights of the parties, etc. {Para 15}

16. In considered view of this court, appropriate interpretation to Section 15A(3) and (5) would be that right of parties involved in the proceedings cannot be decided finally without notice/hearing to the victim. This however would not take away power of the court to protect the liberty of person in appropriate cases keeping in mind the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

17. Moreover, it is well settled principle that the prima facie observations made by the Court at interim stage are not binding on the same court while deciding the application finally. Hence, the Special Court is within is power to grant ad-interim bail and issue notice at the same instance.

18. The issue involved in this proceeding as recorded in Para 1 above is answered in affirmative. It is held that Special Court or High Court would have jurisdiction to grant ad-interim relief to protect liberty of applicant in appropriate cases and simultaneously issue notice to Victim/Informant for hearing of proceeding for its decision.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2025

Decided On: 27.02.2026

Sahil Ramesh Sonavane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:10270,MANU/MH/1970/2026

Print Page

Allahabad HC set aside a summoning order passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act because no opportunity of hearing was given under Section 223(1) BNSS

It is further contended that as per proviso of Section 223(1) of BNSS-2023, no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard but he has failed to do so. Section 223(1) of BNSS-2023 reads as under:-

" 223. Examination of complainant. (1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212:Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

(2) XXXX"

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but did not dispute the legal position of law.

6. Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned summoning order without giving opportunity of hearing.

7. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2025, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Sonbhadra, is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10890 of 2025

Mekala Chandra Shekar And 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Author: SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Dated: November 25, 2025

Print Page

Bombay HC: Special Court or High Court have jurisdiction to grant ad-interim relief to protect liberty of applicant in offences under Atrocities Act in appropriate cases

Therefore, this court is of the view that the provision of issuance of notice is to be observed at every proceeding as is contemplated by Section 15A(3) of the Act, cannot be construed that it should be at all stages of the same proceedings, and the same would preclude the court to pass any order including grant of ad-interim protection. Any such interpretation would lead to an absurd situation such as without hearing the victim even notice cannot be issued. In absence of any provision creating an embargo on the court to grant such relief, which has been done specifically in provision of Section 18, where the case prima facie case is made out of commission of offence under Atrocities Act, court ceases to have jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail, it cannot be so interpreted as sought to be asked by Counsel for Appellant.

{Para 14}

15. There could be variety of situations and eventualities in which for the grant of relief it would become imperative for the court to pass an order without waiting for the service of notice to the informant/ victim. For example, prima facie case is not made out under the act and liberty of such individual is at stake. At various stages different orders are to be passed not affecting rights of the parties, etc.

16. In considered view of this court, appropriate interpretation to Section 15A(3) and (5) would be that right of parties involved in the proceedings cannot be decided finally without notice/hearing to the victim. This however would not take away power of the court to protect the liberty of person in appropriate cases keeping in mind the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

17. Moreover, it is well settled principle that the prima facie observations made by the Court at interim stage are not binding on the same court while deciding the application finally. Hence, the Special Court is within is power to grant ad-interim bail and issue notice at the same instance.

Ratio: While victims have a statutory right to notice and hearing under Section 15A(3) & (5), this does not curtail the court’s power to grant urgent ad‑interim relief to protect liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The balance lies in hearing the victim before final disposal, but not necessarily before interim protection. Thus, the Special Court/High Court can grant ad‑interim bail and simultaneously issue notice to the victim.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2025

Decided On: 27.02.2026

Sahil Ramesh Sonavane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1970/2026,2026:BHC-AS:10270.

Print Page

Supreme Court: When a person ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his conversion to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke provisions of SC/ST(Atrocities) Act

A. Offences alleged under the SC/ST Act

60) At the very outset, it must be unequivocally stated that the offences registered under the SC/ST Act against respondent nos. 2 to 7 at the instance of the appellant cannot be sustained. Having already held that the appellant ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his conversion to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The said statute is a special legislation enacted with the avowed object of preventing atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and once the foundational requirement of caste status stands extinguished, the statutory protection thereunder is no longer available.

61) Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste on his conversion to Christianity. Accordingly, the appellant cannot be a person aggrieved under the SC/ST Act.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1580 OF 2026

CHINTHADA ANAND  Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Author: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Citation:  2026 INSC 283.

Dated: MARCH 24, 2026.

Print Page

Just Being There Isn’t a Crime: 3 Surprising Truths from a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling of Keshav Mahato v. State of Bihar

 

Imagine standing with friends when a dispute erupts, only to later face serious criminal charges—not for anything you did, but simply for being present. This exact dilemma, testing the line between presence and culpability, was the focus of Keshav Mahato v. State of Bihar, a case that reached the Supreme Court after the Patna High Court declined to intervene. The verdict delivers a powerful clarification on personal responsibility in criminal law.

Mere Presence Isn't a Crime: The Court Demands an "Overt Act"

In Bihar's Bhagalpur district, Keshav Mahato was charged under the stringent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, or SC/ST Act, for being present with others during an altercation. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices asked the prosecution a single, piercing question: "What is the specific evidence against the appellant?"

Print Page

Supreme Court: Caste-based humiliation is mandatory for attracting offence Under SC &ST Atrocities Act

Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason

for the intentional insult or intimidation by the

accused is that the person who is subjected to is a

member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In

other words, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot

stand merely on the fact that the

informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste

or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or

intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a

member of the community. {Para 12}

13. To put it briefly - first, the fact that the

complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. Secondly, any

insult or intimidation towards the complainant must be

on the account of such person being a member of a

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

14. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity,

we deem it appropriate to mention that even mere

knowledge of the fact that the complainant is a member

of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not

sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).

15. Further, for an offence to be made out under

Section 3(1)(s), merely abusing a member of a

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be

enough. At the same time, saying caste name would also

not constitute an offence.

16. In other words, to constitute an offence under

Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused

abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Tribe “by the caste name” in any place within public

view. Thus, the allegations must reveal that abuses

were laced with caste name, or the caste name had been

hurled as an abuse.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ______ OF 2026

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 12144 OF 2025]

KESHAW MAHTO @ KESHAW KUMAR MAHTO Vs  STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Dated: JANUARY 12, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: For an offence to be made out U/S 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough

Further, for an offence to be made out under

Section 3(1)(s), merely abusing a member of a

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be

enough. At the same time, saying caste name would also

not constitute an offence. {Para 15}

16. In other words, to constitute an offence under

Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused

abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Tribe “by the caste name” in any place within public

view. Thus, the allegations must reveal that abuses

were laced with caste name, or the caste name had been

hurled as an abuse.

Ratio: The Supreme Court held that abusive language alone is not an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless it is used with the intent to humiliate a person by their caste, and mere insult, even with knowledge of caste, is not punishable without such specific intent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ______ OF 2026

KESHAW MAHTO @ KESHAW KUMAR MAHTO  Vs  STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 

Dated: JANUARY 12, 2026.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: How to prove that particular police officer was appointed as investigating officer in particular case?

 As per Rule 7 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintended of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. {Para 29}

30. There is no document on record to show that he was appointed by Superintendent of Police to investigate this case.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Cri. A. No. 2800 of 2010

Decided On: 15.05.2019

Ashok Sangappa Sidareddi Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Bellunke, J.

Citation: 2019 CRLJ 4052, AIRONLINE 2019 Kar 458,MANU/KA/7633/2019.

Read full judgment here : Click here.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence U/S 353 of IPC regarding performance of official duty by public servant?

 As per Rule 7 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintended of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. {Para 29}

30. There is no document on record to show that he was appointed by Superintendent of Police to investigate this case. On perusal of his evidence, he has not at all stated anything with regard to PW1 that he was on duty and how his official duty was obstructed on account of incident in question. It is important to note that neither PW1 nor PW5 deposed with regard to the deterring by the accused in performing the official duties of PW1. There is no presumption as such with the official in the office during the office hours should be presumed to be on duty. In order to prove the offence under Section 353 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove PW1 was on official duty and the act committed by the accused deterred him from doing his duty. In the absence of these ingredients the accused could not have even convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. Though the Investigating Officer obtained Ex. P9, but it is not stated on what basis Ex. P9 was issued and what was the duty the complainant was doing at the time of incident. No inference can be drawn from the document that PWs. 1 and 2 were discharging any duty as such. In Ex. P9, the name of the person, who had signed is not mentioned or no office seal is attested to it. He did not know whose custody the movement register there in the office nor he has verified the same. Who obtained Ex. P9 is not forthcoming. There is no serial number of the said letter nor the name of staff who obtained and furnished the document to Investigating Officer, is not mentioned.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Cri. A. No. 2800 of 2010

Decided On: 15.05.2019

Ashok Sangappa Sidareddi Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Bellunke, J.

Citation: 2019 CRLJ 4052, AIRONLINE 2019 Kar 458,MANU/KA/7633/2019.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Prosecution under SC & ST (Atrocities) Act is liable to be quashed if caste of the complainant or the accused is not mentioned in the complaint

The learned Counsel for the applicant had relied on a decision of this Court reported in MANU/MH/0877/2005 : 2005(4)MhLj588 , Manohar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra. This Court has made the following observations.

It is a precondition that person committing the alleged offence must not be belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In the report filed in the Police Station, there ought to have been some averment indicating that the offender does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In the absence of such averment or any other material before the Police Station Officer for coming to the conclusion that the accused named in the said report does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act cannot be registered.

It is apparent from this observations of this Court that the F.I.R. should not only disclose the caste of the complainant but it must also disclose the caste of the accused. If we go through the F.I.R., copy of which has been filed on record of this case, it would be clear that the report does disclose the caste of the complainant but it does not disclose the caste of the offender at all. The learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted that when the caste of the complainant itself is disclosed and it is alleged that he was abused on the basis of the caste, he is the person who does not belong to scheduled caste. Such an inference cannot be drawn. He also submitted that even if name of the complainant is seen, he does not belong to scheduled caste. Even such an inference cannot be drawn. The surnames in the State of Maharashtra is very deceptive. For instance, surnames Athawale, Abhyankar are to be found amongst Brahmins and such surnames are also to be found amongst scheduled castes. It cannot, therefore, be said that the surname can be a guide to find a caste of any particular person. It is particularly for this reason that it becomes necessary that the caste of the offender must also be disclosed in the complaint. In this particular case, the caste of the complainant is not disclosed in the complaint and yet the offence has been registered by the police. This Court in Manohar Kulkarni's case has specifically held that in no case the Police Officer can register an offence if caste of the complainant or the accused is not mentioned in the complaint. {Para 4}

8. Since I am bound by the decision in Manohar Kulkarni's case, I must hold that the F.I.R. under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act needs to be quashed. Hence, the following order. The petition is allowed to the extent that the F.I.R. registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act stands quashed.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Cri. Appln. No. 1877 of 2007

Decided On: 04.10.2007

Prakash Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.L. Pangarkar, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1127/2007,2008(1) MHLJ 139,2008(2) Crimes 168.

Print Page

Bombay HC: When abuses in the name of caste is given inside the house, offence under SC & ST (Atrocities) Act is not attracted

 We would like to deal with the allegations against accused Almas and Pappu @ Irfan Shaikh. Accused Almas is the wife of accused Rijwan and Pappu @ Irfan is the brother of accused Rijwan. As aforesaid, the initial report was only against accused Rijwan and, therefore, the offence was registered only under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code against him. But then on the basis of said supplementary statement of which major contents have been reproduced earlier, we will have to consider where the role of accused Almas and Pappu Shaikh has been described. As per the said FIR, accused Almas came in picture after marriage between Rijwan and informant on 15.07.2022. She says that after they both started residing together at a different place, accused Almas used to go there in the house and used to abuse her by saying that she is not Muslim, but of the inferior caste and, therefore, she should give divorce to her husband. Here, the alleged abuse is stated to be inside the house and, therefore, it cannot be considered as a public place and not even within the public view to attract Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. It is not stated in the supplementary statement as to who had heard those abuses. If the informant and the said accused Almas were the only person present in the house, then it will not even attract Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. Thereafter it is stated that the informant had gone to the house of Rijwan two to three days after 26.07.2022. Rijwan's house is situated in Kanjar Lane, Sadar Bazar, Bhingar, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar. In the said house, she was beaten by accused Almas and abused in the name of caste. It is then stated that at the same time accused Pappu Shaikh, who was present in front of the house of Rijwan as well as accused Altaf, who is nephew, abused her in the name of caste. She has not stated exact where the incident has taken place, but since she was inside the house when accused Almas has abused her in the name of caste, there is a scope to consider that the alleged abuses by the other two accused i.e. Pappu @ Irfan and his son Altaf were also inside the house. At the cost of repetition it can be said that these statements taken as it is will not attract Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) much less Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. Police have also invoked Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act, but they cannot be against accused Almas and Pappu @ Irfan. Nobody else has seen them assaulting the informant. The scrutiny of all these contentions was required in order to see as to whether offence under the Atrocities Act has been made out or not. In view of the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others, [MANU/SC/0157/2020 : (2020) 4 SCC 727], if prima facie case is not made out against the accused invoking the Atrocities Act, then such accused can be released on bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as there will not be bar under Section 18 or 18-A of the Atrocities Act. We, therefore, come to conclusion at this stage on the basis of the material which is before us that no such prima facie case has been made out to attract the offence under the Atrocities Act against accused Almas and Pappu Shaikh. Their application before the learned Special Judge under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not barred under Section 18 or 18-A of the Atrocities Act.  {Para 7}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 119 of 2023, 974 of 2022 and 946 of 2022

Decided On: 11.04.2023

Rijwan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023(2) ABR (CRI) 712: AIRONLINE 2023 Bom 756. MANU/MH/1445/2023

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, Abuses given on telephone does not amount to offence under SC & ST Atrocities Act?

The informant, her husband and mother were sitting in the court-yard of her house. Then she says that the appellant gave a phone call on her mobile, she told that he should settle the dispute between him and his wife. But the appellant was making grievances against his wife with the informant. She had cut the phone after giving the advise. But, thereafter, according to her, the present appellant was calling her again and again and abusing. She further says that two social workers, who were with her, advised her to put the phone on speaker mode and listen as to what the appellant is saying. It is stated that the present appellant gave abuses in the name of caste to the informant. {Para 5}

14. The fact that is then ought to have been thoroughly considered by the learned Special Judge, Nandurbar was whether the appellant had knowledge about putting the mobile phone on speaker mode by the informant. Certainly when no such document is forthcoming, at this stage, at the cost of repetitions, it can be said that prima facie, the offence under the SC and ST Act is not made out.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021 and Criminal Application No. 396/2021

Decided On: 04.05.2021

Mahesh Bhikaji Badave Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2022(2) ABR(CRI)389: AIRONLINE 2021 Bom 7134, MANU/MH/1270/2021.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, chamber of public servant is not public place as per SC & ST (Atrocities) Act?

Taking the allegations in the FIR at their face value, it would reveal that what is alleged is that when the complainant was in his office the Accused came there; enquired with the complainant; not being satisfied, started abusing him in the name of his caste; and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the Accused and took him away. {Para 13}

14. It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the incident has taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident.

15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that since the incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, the offence would not come under the provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 96-97 of 2025 

Decided On: 31.01.2025

Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai,  and Augustine George Masih, , JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 132, MANU/SC/0129/2025,AIR 2025 SC 705

Print Page

Bombay HC: When incident occurred inside the house, Atrocities Act is not attracted, accused is entitled to be released on Anticipatory bail

 Taking into consideration the well settled position of law if the facts in the present case are taken into consideration, admittedly there is no reference regarding the insult or humiliation with reference to the caste the recitals of the FIR also shows that the alleged incident has taken place inside the house so it is not within the public view. Undisputedly, the statements recorded after registration of the crime shows that there is absolutely no reference as to the insult by referring the caste of the informant. The general allegations are made against the appellants and from the allegations admittedly the offence comes under the Indian Penal Code however, the recitals of the FIR are not sufficient to attract the provisions under the Act of 1989. Considering the allegations levelled against the present appellants, the bar under Section 18 or 18A is not attracted, and therefore, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

{Para 13}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2022

Decided On: 07.07.2023

Rekha and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Urmila S. Joshi-Phalke, J.

Citation: 2023 ALLMR (CRI) 2997,MANU/MH/2598/2023.

Print Page

Checklist Toolkit for Session Judges: Bail Applications under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act

 Pre-Application Assessment Framework

Prima Facie Case Evaluation

• Verify if allegations specifically fall under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act

• Assess whether the incident occurred in public view as required for most offenses

• Determine if there is evidence of caste-based intent to humiliate based on caste identity

• Check if the act involves entrenched social norms like untouchability or caste superiority

• Evaluate whether it's a mere insult without caste-based malice (not covered under the Act)

Print Page

What are considerations for grant of anticipatory bail in case of SC & ST Atrocities offences after amendment in S18 of said Act?

 The Supreme Court has established specific considerations for granting anticipatory bail in SC & ST Atrocity cases following the 2018 amendment to Section 18 of the Act. Here are the key considerations:

Prima Facie Case Requirement

The primary consideration is whether a prima facie case under the SC & ST Act has been established against the accused. The Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria v State of kerala  2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 clarified that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 does not apply unless a prima facie case under the Act is made out.

Print Page

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Caste-Based Offences in Digital Media: The Shajan Skaria Judgment

 The Supreme Court of India's decision in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala  2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 has provided crucial clarity on when uploading videos on digital platforms can constitute offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The judgment, delivered on August 23, 2024, establishes important precedents for content creators and addresses the intersection of free speech and caste-based protection laws in the digital age.

Background of the Case

Print Page

Under which circumstances person accused of offences under SC& ST(Atrocities) Act is entitled to be released on Anticipatory bail?

 The basic ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act, 1989 are:

a. Accused should not be a member of the Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

b. Accused should by words, either written or spoken, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise;

c. Promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribes.

{Para 76}

77. In our opinion, there is nothing to even prima facie indicate that the appellant by publishing the video on YouTube promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The video has nothing to do in general with the members of Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. His target was just the complainant alone. The offence under Section 3(1)(u) will come into play only when any person is trying to promote ill feeling or enmity against the members of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes as a group and not as individuals.

vi. Whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989?

78. It was also sought to be argued that the appellant knew very well that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and despite such knowledge if he went on to make derogatory utterances in the video then the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) respectively of the Act, 1989 could be said to have been prima facie made out.

79. We find no merit in the aforesaid submission. Wherever the legislature intended that mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would be sufficient to constitute an offence under the Act, 1989, it has said so in so many words. We may reproduce some of the relevant provisions where knowledge that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is sufficient in itself to constitute the offence:

80. At the cost of repetition, the words in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are altogether different. Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. As discussed earlier, the offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. When we are considering whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste.

81. The High Court in its impugned order has observed “materials on record do indicate that the video is intended to insult and humiliate the second respondent.” The High Court may be right in observing that the intention of the appellant could have been to insult and humiliate the complainant but the High Court failed to consider whether such insult or humiliation was on account of or for the reason that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. Is it the case of the complainant that had he not belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the appellant would not have levelled the allegations? The answer lies in the question itself.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.)

Shajan Skaria Vs  State of Kerala and Another 

Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8081 of 2023)

Decided on August 23, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249.

Print Page

Supreme Court: In case of gang rape, an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment if they have acted in furtherance of the common intention

 This aspect has also come up for judicial consideration before this Court in Pramod Mahto and Others vs. State of Bihar, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 672 wherein this Court held that the Explanation has been introduced with a view to effectively dealt with the growing menace of gang rape and in such circumstances, it was not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of complete act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one. {Para 21}

22. Further, in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 2 SCC

143, it was held as under:-

“8. Charge against the appellant is under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.

In order to establish an offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC,

read with Explanation I thereto, the prosecution must adduce

evidence to indicate that more than one accused had acted in

concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by

even one, all the accused will be guilty irrespective of the fact

that she had been raped by one or more of them and it is not

necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a

completed act of rape by each one of the accused. In other

words, this provision embodies a principle of joint liability and

the essence of that liability is the existence of common intention;

that common intention presupposes prior concert which may be

determined from the conduct of offenders revealed during the

course of action and it could arise and be formed suddenly, but,

there must be meeting of minds. It is not enough to have the

same intention independently of each of the offenders. In such

cases, there must be criminal sharing marking out a certain

measure of jointness in the commission of offence.”

(Emphasis supplied)

23. In view of this, it is very clear that in a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment as long as they have acted in furtherance of the common intention. Further, common intention is implicit in the charge of Section 376(2)(g) itself and all that is needed is evidence to show the existence of common intention.

24. In this case, as is clear from the sequence of events, the abduction of the victim, her wrongful confinement, her testimony about being subjected to sexual assault clearly points to the fact that the ingredients of Section 376(2)(g) are squarely attracted and the appellant herein along with Jalandhar Kol acted in concert and with a common intention to sexually assault the prosecutrix ‘R’. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 17398/2024)

RAJU @ UMAKANT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 615.

Dated: 1 st May, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: No conviction for an offence under SC& ST Atrocities Act, if prosecution has failed to prove that offence has happened due to victims caste identity

Earlier, in the same judgment, dealing with the situation where

oppression operated at an intersectional fashion, this Court held in

“54. The key words are “on the ground that such person is a

member of an SC or ST”. The expression “on the ground”

means “for the reason” or “on the basis of”. The above

provision (as it stood at the material time prior to its

amendment, which will be noticed later) is an example of a

statute recognising only a single axis model of oppression. As

we have discussed above, such single axis models require a

person to prove a discrete experience of oppression suffered on

account of a given social characteristic. However, when

oppression operates in an intersectional fashion, it becomes

difficult to identify, in a disjunctive fashion, which ground

was the basis of oppression because often multiple grounds

operate in tandem. {Para 41}

The Court notices in Patan Jamal Vali (supra) that the amendment has decreased the threshold of proving that the crime was committed on the basis of the caste identify to a threshold where mere knowledge is sufficient to threshold a conviction. The Court also noticed that presumption in Section 8 which provided that if the accused was acquainted with the victim or his family, the court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless proved otherwise.

44. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that there was no evidence to bring the case within the threshold of Patan Jamal Vali (supra). There is no evidence whatsoever to establish the fact that the victims caste identity was one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence. In the absence of any evidence attracting the offence of Section 3(2)(v), we are constrained to record an acquittal for the appellant from the charge of Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act. {Para 43}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 17398/2024)

RAJU @ UMAKANT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 615.

Dated: 1 st May, 2025.

Print Page